Would you allow?

[薔薇語]

Hello everyone,

 

This has been bothering me for a couple days now. I am joining a Teen Champions game and there are two powers with 'always on' limitation on them for another character that I don't precieve to be limiting because the GM in this case will allow him to simply turn them off using the optional rule to allow you to do so. However my argument is that becuase of the nature of the power, being able to turn them off at a whim, no longer limits them, and instead gives a point break and all the bonuses without any real limitation, other than the 1 endurence it takes to stop it for a phase, but the character has 30 end to deal with.

 

First is Clinging with [edit] 'Persistant +1/2' and [end edit] 'only to remain standing -1' and 'always on -1/2.'

---The way I understand it is that it is a low center of gravity and that it allows him exert a real resistance to being knocked over, etc. But my argument is that since it is 'always on' he shouldn't really be able to be moved off the ground, including but not limited too: Jumping, Flying (or being lifted with someone with flight), being picked up and put on a stretcher by EMTs. However since he can turn it off as he wishes he would no longer suffer those disads. Also since he can't turn if off while asleep he wouldn't be able to sleep lieing down and instead would have to reamain standing. But to my knowledge he doesn't suffer that stylistic disad either.

 

Does that make since to anyone else?

 

The other is Knockback Resistance with 'always on -1/2.'

---The way I understand this one is that it operates in much the same manner as the above power. But what is the disad to this power with always on? The only things I can think of is that he couldn't be thrown by an ally if needed, or that at least he would have to subtract the five inches worth of movement. But even if you count that as a disad (and no I wouldn't), he can still just 'turn it off' with the optional rule for always on.

 

Am I off my rocker or is the 'always on' limitation in this case not actually limiting? But when I raised these issues I got the "[my name], I'm the GM and that is the way I say it is." Thanks for any imput.

 

La Rose

[Trebuchet]

Re: Would you allow?

 

No, as described I wouldn't allow either one without the player defining clear-cut situations where those are valid Limitations. Always On gives the standard requirement level. These don't appear to meet those requirements.

 

Given the low costs of these Powers, the point savings must be minimal anyway.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Would you allow?

 

It sounds as though you have a GM who does not understand the Endurance rules or is playing favorites. The fact that he's being stubborn about it is even worse.

 

from:

284 Character Creation: Power Modifiers

Hero System 5th edition, Revised

 

ALWAYS ON

Value: -½

A power that a character can never turn off is worth a -½ Limitation. Before a power can take Always On, it must first have the Advantages Reduced Endurance (0 END) and Persistent (unless it naturally costs 0 END and/or is Persistent). A character cannot Push an Always On power (see page 427). Having an Always On power also tends to make it difficult for a character to disguise himself. The GM should define any other problems a character with an Always On power typically has. Powers like Invisibility or Force Field have clear difficulties when Always On. (Ever tried eating through a Force Field?)

 

10 Clinging (normal STR), Persistent (+1/2) (15 Active Points); Always On (-1/2)

[Notes: Persistent: (Hero System Fifth Edition Rule Book, page 165; Revised, page 257-258) A Power with this Advantage remains "turned on" even though the character is unconscious. Always On: (Hero System Fifth Edition Rule Book, page 182; Revised, page 284) This Limitation represents a Power that the character can never turn off.] - END=0

 

A Character with this power wouldn't be able to walk without making a 'breakout roll' vs. his own STR every phase.

[薔薇語]

Re: Would you allow?

 

thanks for the comments, and in response to my write up on the Clinging, I did acidently leave off persistant but it is on the actual power.

 

Although the point break is only 1point per power it does count as 1% of the character (200pt characters). And it isn't so much the points as the lack of being able to communicate to them that it isn't a limitation in the first place. Well in the end is doesn't much matter since they arn't going to actually be game unbalancing powers and I doubt they will change, but it is nice to know I am not off my rocker when I said what I thought to be true.

 

La Rose

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Would you allow?

 

thanks for the comments, and in response to my write up on the Clinging, I did acidently leave off persistant but it is on the actual power.

 

Although the point break is only 1point per power it does count as 1% of the character (200pt characters). And it isn't so much the points as the lack of being able to communicate to them that it isn't a limitation in the first place. Well in the end is doesn't much matter since they arn't going to actually be game unbalancing powers and I doubt they will change, but it is nice to know I am not off my rocker when I said what I thought to be true.

 

La Rose

 

My concern is that it might be emblematic of how he intends to run his games. Hopefully not though.

[McCoy]

Re: Would you allow?

 

Sorry, but my problem is that you are not the GM and this is not your character. Why are you the one asking this?

[薔薇語]

Re: Would you allow?

 

Sorry' date=' but my problem is that you are not the GM and this is not your character. Why are you the one asking this?[/quote']

 

We met up last Saturday with the intent on ironing out our characters and the player with the powers in question had mentioned them out loud and sparked my interest (he really enjoys talking about this character). That is why I started that line of questioning, also all the character sheets are open to eachother to view and are even posted on the GM's website.

 

That is why I asked that.

 

La Rose

[Comic]

Re: Would you allow?

 

The GM is always right.

 

In this case, I advise stocking up on Cheetos from the discount bin for the GM.

 

..And something mellow for yourself, because it'll be a long, long campaign (or a very short one) if you let the small stuff stress you out.

[McCoy]

Re: Would you allow?

 

We met up last Saturday with the intent on ironing out our characters and the player with the powers in question had mentioned them out loud and sparked my interest (he really enjoys talking about this character). That is why I started that line of questioning, also all the character sheets are open to eachother to view and are even posted on the GM's website.

 

That is why I asked that.

 

La Rose

Given that, no, I dn't see the disadvantage to the character, and would not allow "always on" with those Sx.

[Comic]

Re: Would you allow?

 

There are many ways a GM can interpret Always On for powers.

 

AO Clinging might range from needing a STR breakout for every step (or damaging the surface one is walking on with Casual STR), to merely being harder to shift if knocked out -- say for the sake of being dragged under cover or in the case of medical care.

 

Since there's no real point savings (requiring Persistent to take AO, the power actually costs 1 point more, since.. when is Persistent ever really going to matter on this sort of Clinging? certainly less often than the Always On), I see nothing in this construction except an attempt to simulate a random amount of Knockback Resistance. Built the hard way (Activation Rolls for partial KBR), it's needlessly complex and would cost about the same.

 

The knockback resistance build mentioned would again be treated by me as an added difficulty to being moved around by allies while injured or unconscious. And as much fun as that is, I can't see a GM alive who would resist the opportunity to bring that into play. The character would also be in more trouble on slides, slick surfaces or when trying to climb, for the same reason. Sure, they wouldn't lose verticality, but they wouldn't be much able to control their direction, either.

 

And, there are two weaknesses with the original post:

a) 1 END would be required to turn off each power, each phase. That's 2 extra END for each phase, for a character with only 30 END to start off. That's a pretty fair bleed off of END;

there were a couple of "to my knowledge's" in there. We don't know the GM, or the GM's thought processes, or the house rules, or the campaign, or the secrets the GM keeps from the players, or what discussions some players haven't been party to. So, there's no reasonable basis to answer the OP.

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Would you allow?

 

Usually Knockback Resistance with the Always On limitation is how our group buys Extra Mass. The Always On limitation in this case means that you are always as heavy as the extra KB resistance implies. Although, nowadays, you take the physical limitation to represent that you are heavier instead of always on.

 

Clinging looks like the wrong build, if it is truly low center of mass, then KB resistance is the way to go, you can even put a limitation that the character still takes the KB but remains standing. Also, if he takes an uppercut, the KB into the air would still remain the same since low center of mass does not keep him attached to the ground, but would (up to his limit of KB resistance) prevent him from becoming prone from being airborne.

 

Anyway, my 2 cents.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Would you allow?

 

The issue here (at least for me if I was playing in the group too) isn't with the use of the optional rule to turn off an Always On Power. This is an established rule the GM is free to use, and the limited amount of gain is offset by the limited point break the Power gets in your given examples. Instead based on the SFX of the described Powers, I'd say neither would be limited by Always On in the first place.

 

Now, if the GM has assigned some disadvantage, or has approved a player suggested disadvantage, for these abilities being Always On, as long as it affects them appropriately for the points saved I'd say all is good. Obviously if the character is injured and unconscious and needs medical attention, he can't turn off his Clinging to allow a medic to lift him or move him unless he's making a STR roll every Phase, which might be worth that 1 point. I can't think of anything for the KBR, but maybe the GM has. I'd suggest find out what that is from your GM and hopefully whatever it is will satisfy you. If not, continue to talk with your GM about it.

 

Keep in mind though that this is only 2 points. It might be worth your time to simply forget about it.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Would you allow?

 

The GM is always right.

 

Well, no. GMs are not always right. However, what they say, goes.

 

(And if what they say is dumb enough, their players go, too.)

[Sundansyr]

Re: Would you allow?

 

Powers like Invisibility or Force Field have clear difficulties when Always On. (Ever tried eating through a Force Field?).

 

A good way around the forcefield connundrum... Personal Immunity.

 

You can eat through it, but no one can use Heal on you.

 

As for the clinging/KB resistance Always On, the character should have clearly defined mechanisms to counterract it, but the character itself should not be able to willingly deactivate it. If they want to be able to turn it off, even temporarily, it should be purchased with some difficulties to do so (Costs End, Extra End, Skill Roll, Concentration).

Using a focus for this, and removing the focus to turn it off, should not have the Always On limitation, it should merely be Persistant.

[Tech]

Re: Would you allow?

 

Well, no. GMs are not always right. However, what they say, goes.

 

(And if what they say is dumb enough, their players go, too.)

 

Funny and yet true: the GM is not always right.

 

A GM make make a ruling but a good GM will listen to what players may say about the ruling: if the player makes a good argument against what the GM said, the GM should consider revising his ruling. I've done that plenty of times - it show you as the GM don't know everything and you're flexible. It also shows that when you make a ruling, the players are more likely to go along with it.

 

Now, regarding what 'The Rose' said, if it's only a few points, I wouldn't argue much against it. However, if favoritism is involved, you really need to talk to the GM because there's going to be more problems down the road. If your concern is merely about the rules, ignore it. If it keeps you up at night, let the GM read this forum - we don't mind.

[薔薇語]

Re: Would you allow?

 

Now' date=' regarding what 'The Rose' said, if it's only a few points, I wouldn't argue much against it. However, if favoritism is involved, you really need to talk to the GM because there's going to be more problems down the road. If your concern is merely about the rules, ignore it. If it keeps you up at night, let the GM read this forum - we don't mind.[/quote']

 

I don't think it is favoritism and like I said it not going to really affect the game one way or the other, it just erks me becuase I know that from my view of the situation I was correct in what I said, but was blantly told I wasn't. That is the unfortunate re-occurrence with this paticular person, and although it tends to be only on the small things, it sometimes erks me more than it should. But hey what can I say, I really just hate being told That I am Wrong. Now I have to admit my persistance (which I bought as +10Ego w/ Uncontrolled and Always on, only to keep arguing -12pts) can be rather much for some, and does escalate some issues.

 

But in the end it really doesn't matter and this was more of a way for me to get the issue off my chest, so I don't lose sleep over it, than anything else.

 

La Rose

[Checkmate]

Re: Would you allow?

 

I have to say I'm a player who gets annoyed when a GM lets another player have dubious builds or limitations that don't really limit. Sure It shouldn't matter to me but it does. Why should I have to follow the rules when others don't? I mean I'd love to have a VPP with a limitation Can Only Have Powers That Can Be Made With The Hero System -2, on top of Can Only have Powers That I Think Of -3.

 

We should all follow the same rules, when some do and some don't it annoys me.

[Kdansky]

Re: Would you allow?

 

I suggest slapping "always on" on all your powers too